Michael Jackson is "evil"

coming down from the extreme Thriller heights required a three-step New Jersey process perhaps.

i recall HIStory being a HUGE deal (and i bought it!) and Dangerous maybe not performing at the level people were hoping for.

MJ's worldwide sales figures go something like:

Thriller - 66 million
Bad - 35 million
Dangerous - 32 million
HIStory - 20 million

I assume HIStory's sales figures were boosted a bit by the double-CD = 2 unit sales?

well not to mention the 2nd disc was a greatest hits comp which gave a whole new generation reason to buy it. whose decision was that, anyway - MJ or the record company?

there was also a controversy regarding the scream video because mj beats up a car. america has changed quite a bit since then.

by whom

Zappa, I think, for one. Cole and Appice both also sound like they were bragging.

Btw, was just teaching a 7yo (not the one mentioned above) an exercise involving the 1st 3 notes of a minor scale and he commented that it sounded like the beginning of "Billie Jean".

The beating up a car was from one of the Bad singles, right, not Scream?

Black or White

XP The long version of "Black or White, I think? It was definitely part of the video premiere after the Simpsons (remember that?).

"Scream" is MJ and Janet on a spaceship.

Zappa, I think, for one. Cole and Appice both also sound like they were bragging.

This is a total of one outside observer

in 2009, Vanity Fair published an index of detailed reported pieces that Maureen Orth had written on Jackson's grooming/molestation cases in 1994, 1995, 2003, 2004 and 2005: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2009/06/michael-jackson-is-gone-but-the-sad-facts-remain

Unrelated to the sex abuse, but his behaviour over the Beatles catalogue purchase should have put paid to any "oh he's just a waif-like innocent man-child" bullshit in and of itself. Kind of an indication of how he really was behind the mask (pun(s) intended).

https://www.biography.com/news/michael-jackson-paul-mccartney-beatles-music-catalog

the faxes and the tape on the plane were the most disturbing parts of this for me

Even though the details of the abuse are absolutely horrifying, that's the only time we see/hear the way Jackson actually spoke to these boys (rather than them reporting what he said)

it's just so palpably wrong

I didn't see the doc - merely here to post this pretty good reaction piece:

https://newrepublic.com/article/153270/michael-jackson-its-different

in 2009, Vanity Fair published an index of detailed reported pieces that Maureen Orth had written on Jackson's grooming/molestation cases in 1994, 1995, 2003, 2004 and 2005: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2009/06/michael-jackson-is-gone-but-the-sad-facts-remain

― steven, soda jerk (sic), Monday, March 11, 2019 9:00 PM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

thanks for the link -- just finished reading the first of these. chilling stuff.

i think there may have been a time when i would have found this anecdote funny, but it made me physically recoil just now:

One Hollywood screenwriter remembers that immediately after his baby was born in a Santa Monica hospital a release form was thrust at him. "What's this?" he asked. "It's from Michael Jackson," said the nurse. She explained that Jackson frequented the hospital to stare into the eyes of newborns. "He feels then that he can really see their souls."

that is some weird shit right there

Jimmy Saville had free access to hospitals (and morgues) for which he did fundraising, for three decades.

64 reported cases in one hospital alone.

(A 12-year-old girl) remembered being approached by a white-haired porter, wearing a gold medallion and a white coat, as she walked to the television room one evening after her surgery.

The man, who she did not recognise at the time because her family did not watch television, escorted her into the room and when they were alone he pounced, raping his young victim and walking off as if nothing had happened.

When she told a nurse about the incident she says she was told not to say anything or the staff would get into trouble. She later wrote a note explaining what had happened on a page torn out of a Bible, adding her father’s name and address.

She left the note in a red postbox on the ward in the hope that someone would contact her family, but nobody ever did. Twenty years later she says she wrote to Savile’s secretary, Janet Cope, explaining what had happened but she never got any response.

Cardinal Pell, an hour ago, got three years and 8 months without parole. That's nearly as long as the Vatican kept protecting him from having to return to Australia to give evidence! No word yet as to whether he'll stop being in charge of the budget for the entire Catholic church planet-wide. (He was removed from being one of the Pope's eight advisors 10 weeks ago, after his conviction, but is still able to use worshippers' tithes to pay for his lawyers.)

HIStory has tracks i've never heard of; Little Susie, Tabloid Junkie, Money, Smile, 2 Bad (featuring Shaquille O Neal).. anyone ever heard any of this? Also who the heck was buying HIStory *for the hits*?? 40-odd million already people must have already had them! The album consists of hits from the preceding 4 albums only. It's crackers!

Little Susie is creepy creepy creepy only exceeded in its creepiness by the drawing signed by MJ illustrating the song in the booklet.

I recall liking tabloid junkie. The track I love on history is “like a sonic in Moscow”

Stupid Celebrity Speaks

https://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/ny-barbra-streisand-michael-jackson-accusers-thrilled-sexual-needs-20190323-7z3b2dqgbzh7jfs4yyhqhdfjyi-story.html

Impressivelt out of touch, Babs!

Absolutely scorching take

what an appalling person

it’s like aaking my Mum what she thinks

Diana Ross has tweeted defending him too.

Diana Ross and MJ were very close, it’s not the same as Babs

it's a terrible take, it's also true that i'm pretty sure barbara streisand stopped caring what other people think about her before i was born.

i was at the grocery store today buying more drugs and they were playing "man in the mirror"

i was like "wow, ok"

Babs did the apology press release

I just saw a show with an MJ impersonator in it, now I’ve got mixed feelings again. It’s not his fault!!! Dudes just trying to make a living!!

His 'Best of' leapt 30+ places into the Top 20 last Friday in the UK album charts.

really testing the "all press is good press" adage

that's kind of like seeing a news report about the syrian civil war and deciding to head out for takeout falafel.

I just saw a show with an MJ impersonator in it, now I’ve got mixed feelings again. It’s not his fault!!! Dudes just trying to make a living!!

― frogbs

sure but i bet vaughn meader would be hella resentful if he were alive

I heard "The Way You Make Me Feel," "Billie Jean," and "Smooth Criminal" in different public spaces over the past week. Maybe I'm just noticing it more, but it seems like his music is getting played out now just as much as after he died.

Really? A lot of radiostations/television channels have stopped playing his music. That said an impersonator just sold out a show here.

heard "billie jean" and "shake your body (down to the ground)" at a bar this weekend

yeah I can't tell if it's actually being played more or if I'm just more receptive to it now

this is going to be one of those things like fucking "baby it's cold outside" isn't it

Thomas Dolby weighed in last night, at some length. He hung out with MJ a bit over the years. His post is on his FB.

On the web we have these things called uniform resource locators that allow one to reference a document on a remote server that can be retrieved with a specified protocol.

people also take stuff down all the time so why don't i just c+p Dolby's reminiscence:

We met a few times, including once in private at his house on Hayvenhurst (on an evening when he was surrounded by young boys in pajamas) and we talked a few times of the phone. Those encounters are well covered in my book The Speed of Sound—which I guess is why people have been asking me what I think of this documentary.
What little I saw at MJ’s house of his interactions with the kids was not inconsistent with the (non-sexual) activities documented in Finding Neverland. Across the board, observers describe MJ as someone with the emotions of a young child himself, and that’s what I saw. Undoubtedly the boys were his playmates. Now grown up, these two men Wade Robson and James Safechuck are certainly victims of their association with Michael. He had a lonely, persecuted and haunted lifestyle, and there was plenty of collateral damage to those around him. I recognize most of what’s in this documentary as the truth. Still, I find it hard to believe these two accusers on the subject of the sexual abuse. Here’s what I think and why:
Almost all aspects of the two accusers’ stories can be independently verified, except for the sex. There are photos, videos, letters, presumably security logs, and eye witnesses from staff. With Michael deceased (and unless some other third party witness comes forward) the only possible testimonies as to the sex are from the victims themselves. So let’s assume the rest, at least, is true: it’s true that each of these boys were very much in MJ’s inner circle, he loved them, they loved and adulated him. It’s also true that each had a very ambitious ‘stage mother’, who wanted to launch lucrative careers based on their sons’ association with Michael; and each had a family who for a while at least, were thrilled with the first-class treatment they received as MJ’s guests.
Assuming all the ‘daylight’ stuff to be true, now let’s address two different hypotheses about what happened behind closed doors: (a) MJ had sex with the boys (b) MJ did not have sex with the boys.
In support of (a): The documentary paints a very believable picture of the adoration of two boys for their hero, and the giddy excitement of their families at being courted by a millionaire megastar. It fully explains why the boys were attracted to him, why they sought sanctuary in his bed, and why no-one raised the alarm, including their relatives. It shows the harrowing effects of the experience on the boys and the families, especially when their time in MJ’s limelight was up. It makes a good case for why their abuse was never proven in court while MJ was alive, and has only come to light since his death.
In support of (b): All of the above would still hold true even if there was no sex. The two accusers originally swore there was none at all, and it is not clear why they are only claiming now that he abused them. Granted, childhood abuse victims often only come forward in middle age, as we’ve seen with the Catholic Church scandals. But getting it off their consciences, or just ‘doing the right thing’, is that a strong enough motive in itself?
Allow yourself to consider this for a moment: the entire lives of these men (sex or no sex) have hinged around their association with MJ. His affection for them is clear. But he tossed them aside, and left them nothing, no legacy, no cash. Their showbiz careers faltered, and their family lives were devastated. Meanwhile, they’ve watched Michael’s estate reap the rewards of his endless, massive earning power, unable to claim even a penny for themselves. Just being victims of his fickle affection, and the fact he hurt took advantage of them at a young age and hurt their feelings, does not in itself give them any claim to a piece of his fortune.
The only way they can receive reparation for the hurt they feel, is to add a piece of fiction to the whole story: that Michael abused them sexually. (Again, I am hypothesizing here.)
Ever since they were MJ’s child buddies, people have been asking the two accusers if he ever touched them. Provoking them to spill the beans. The papers and the Internet sites talked as if MJ was already a proven 100% pedophile. It was assumed the two men were lying if they claimed otherwise. Maybe there came a point where it was just easier to give in and say, yes, he did abuse them sexually. That’s a story many would readily believe. Their two stories are directly parallel, giving them more than double the credence. Now there’s a documentary filmmaker and a cable network willing to pay them handsomely to co-operate; they get paid either way; and look at the potential upside—they could end up with millions in damages from the estate, and be set up for life.
You could argue that the accusers’ testimonies were carefully fabricated to add damning incrimination. He taught them how to masturbate, he showed them porn, he warned them their lives would be over if anyone found out, etc. It’s a pattern we’ve all heard before, and we all recognize, and abhor it. If this really happened, MJ wouldn’t be the first pedophile in history. Yet it’s also such a formulaic pattern, it’s almost too formulaic to match everything else about MJ, which was anything but.
Either hypothesis is very believable to me. But my gut tells me they are lying about the sex. I believe MJ was an asexual being, a pre-pubescent child. He certainly craved their affection, and he definitely made some stupid decisions that could only be misunderstood by the society we live in. But I don’t believe in my heart that he had sex with these kids.
When I watch the accusers ‘remembering;’ details about their 7- or 10-year old experiences, I don’t feel they are drawing on the memories of a child—they are fabricating adult memories, from their adult experience and imaginations. They may even have come to believe what they’re saying. Memory is a strange thing. That’s my personal gut feeling. And I am not trying to justify the undoubted harm they were caused—nor am I trying to belittle true victims of childhood sexual abuse.
This documentary had a clear agenda from the outset. I see zero evidence that the filmmaker went into it impartially. Everything he presents here is designed to draw one conclusion only. It is not an ‘investigative’ documentary—if it was, he would present alternative viewpoints, and find others to support the testimony of the two victims and their families. It is noticeable that two other of MJ’s ‘buddies’—including McCaulay Culkin—denied any sexual contact, and are not interviewed; while still others that have had their faces blurred, presumably also declining to be interviewed. It seems very likely to me that there was collusion (sorry for the bad timing of this word!) in the making of this film, getting the victims’ stories aligned, rehearsing the interviews, building the strongest case they could.
And I actually think the filmmaker missed a trick here. The lack of impartiality weakens his case. His totally one-sided viewpoint is almost an invitation for someone else to make a ‘rebuttal’ documentary and smear the victims by picking holes in their stories and dragging them through the dirt.
Whatever the outcome, it’s tragic. If MJ was a pedophile—tragic. If these guys are lying to make money—tragic. I hope the truth comes out, but that may never happen. And all this comes at a time when we’re questioning the very nature of Truth.

questioning the very nature of Truth jfc, who the heck is thomas dolby, I assume a prominent epistemologist

I think that "I really don't know what to think!" is, in a lot of ways, a far less immoral and condemnable response than movement-style thinking on this subject allows, and even I think that was a shitty, shitty answer, Dolby. You suck. If I did the cancelling thing, you'd be outta here.

I believe MJ was an asexual being, a pre-pubescent child.

jfc, indeed. he was a 40something man when this stuff was alleged to have happened. do we think he had his gonads snipped off? after he died tons of pornography was found in his home.